bfryar44 Posted December 31, 2006 Share #1 Posted December 31, 2006 Another picture for the thread. Don't know where or what date that the photo was taken but I imagine sometime in late 44 or early 45. BFryar44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ad82recon Posted December 31, 2006 Share #2 Posted December 31, 2006 BFryar, I beleive that to be LeHarve, France in March 1945 and that to be either the 65th Infantry or 16th Armored. So we are pretty much stuck with March 1945 at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeper704 Posted January 3, 2007 Share #3 Posted January 3, 2007 Is it me or is there something wrong with this picture? Ike seems to be added to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRB Posted January 3, 2007 Share #4 Posted January 3, 2007 I noticed that too. The image of Ike seems much sharper and the others are fuzzy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeper704 Posted January 3, 2007 Share #5 Posted January 3, 2007 And the GIs aren't looking at Ike at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfryar44 Posted January 3, 2007 Author Share #6 Posted January 3, 2007 I think you guys are on to someting. Definitely looks "doctored" up now that you mention it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qmjones Posted January 26, 2007 Share #7 Posted January 26, 2007 I Have that pic in a paperback book from the Eisenhower Center, and the date is Feb. '44. Ike is greeting them in Le Havre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Willaert Posted January 26, 2007 Share #8 Posted January 26, 2007 It looks like IKE has 5 stars on his shoulders. If that is the case I doubt this was taken that early, since he was only promoted to that rank in Dec, 1944. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeper704 Posted January 26, 2007 Share #9 Posted January 26, 2007 It is a picture that's been altered. The "colors" don't match, his height doesn't match the distance from the troops, the troops do not look towards him, his rank is "wrong", etc, etc ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qmjones Posted January 26, 2007 Share #10 Posted January 26, 2007 Ooops! Typo! My error. Should be: Feb. '45. Sorry, thanks for catching that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Baker Posted April 17, 2007 Share #11 Posted April 17, 2007 Could it just be motion making the soldiers look fuzzy? At first I also thought it faked, but look at the very right edge. You see a partial profile of someone else. The lighting of/on whoever that is seems to match Ike. Strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Magut Posted April 18, 2007 Share #12 Posted April 18, 2007 I also thought this was a "photoshop" or retouch, until I saw the complete shot, courtesy of the Atlantic magazine: In this context it now looks less artificial. The light and shadows are strange though on the right side of the photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hudson Posted April 18, 2007 Share #13 Posted April 18, 2007 I used to shoot print a lot of black and white film on my own and for a newspaper and I've been doctoring photos with Photoshop since 1992 and I would swear that's a composite photo: if not, then someone spent a lot of time in the darkroom blurring everyone except Ike. Camera depth of field (the range in which things are in focus) is such that something other than Ike would have to be in focus at that angle. It really looks like he was standing in front of a life-sized poster, but it is probably a composite of two photos. They well may have been taken at the same place but for whatever reason the photographer or his editors didn't like any of them and found they could come up with something better from two photos. This was not uncommon practice back in the day and still happens now and then although it is contrary to the policies of most newspapers and news magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FW12 Posted April 18, 2007 Share #14 Posted April 18, 2007 Agreed, I don't particularly like the photo. It just doesn't seem quite right. Beau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Got da Penny Posted April 18, 2007 Share #15 Posted April 18, 2007 Compare Ikes "hand color" to the soldiers.. The color is not even close.. Its got to be a composite. even the angle Ike is at doesn't agree with the Soldiers looking at him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JERRY COBB Posted April 18, 2007 Share #16 Posted April 18, 2007 Though I am not an expert in photography, I agree that this doesn't look right. The scale between Ike and the troops appear to be different and Ike also appears to be looking at something other than the eyes of the trooper closest to him but not at the other trooper beside the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpatrick Posted April 18, 2007 Share #17 Posted April 18, 2007 If I was there, as a soldier in the 65th, I would be looking at him the whole time! I probably would have given him a hearty, "Guten Abend, Herr Ike!! Sprechen se Deutch?" LOL... I wonder how that would have went over? Just one problem. I don't think that he was "there", since the soldiers don't show any sort of acknowledgement that he was present. Surely one soldier would have looked. Ike was very well known for his friendly interaction with the troops. He is "interacting" by having his hand extended, but they show no reaction. Something's a lil' fishy.... Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hudson Posted April 18, 2007 Share #18 Posted April 18, 2007 I found out they cropped out Ike's young bodyguard from the original: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siege1863 Posted April 18, 2007 Share #19 Posted April 18, 2007 Although you cannot see his feet, the way Ike is positioned suggests he was not in the original shot. The men appear to be walking up an incline, whereas Ike is standing more flat-footed. As was stated earlier, the sharpness of Ike in contrast with the men is just not right. He also looks out of scale. It would seem Ike's photo was taken when he was greeting another officer or dignitary, thus the smile and extended hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyde Posted January 2, 2008 Share #20 Posted January 2, 2008 The eye levels differ, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyde Posted January 2, 2008 Share #21 Posted January 2, 2008 The eye levels differ. The horizon line for the soldiers is about the top of the photo. Eisenhower's eyelevel is at the horizon line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steindaddie Posted January 2, 2008 Share #22 Posted January 2, 2008 My primary thought was this: I know anything is possible but, I'm not sure why Eisenhower, his staff, or war correspondents would find it necessary to fake the kind of photo that was no stranger to Ike - meeting and encouraging the troops. And if the eye levels with the dogfaces are off in this pic it could be for reasons of angle, focus and depth, that Eisenhower was taller than average, or, that he isn't humping 100 lbs of crap. So the troops aren't swarming over him? - you're slogging off the boat in Who-Know's-Where-France, all you see is the rump & pack of the guy in front, and then suddenly, of all people, there's Eisenhower. Even if the surprise quickly wore off you can't stop and shoot the breeze, you need to keep moving lest your friendly sergeant add additional hell to your existence. PS. Could it be that some editor had Ike enhamced at a later date? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtillaryMan Posted January 5, 2008 Share #23 Posted January 5, 2008 I can't imagine that the soldier in the center of the pic wouldn't have his hand out to shake the General's. Ike's hand appears to be welcoming a handshake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
collector Posted January 10, 2008 Share #24 Posted January 10, 2008 Retouched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manchu Warrior Posted January 10, 2008 Share #25 Posted January 10, 2008 Compare Ikes "hand color" to the soldiers.. The color is not even close.. Its got to be a composite. even the angle Ike is at doesn't agree with the Soldiers looking at him. Hell, a "Grunts" hands are always going to be dirtier then the Commanding Generals hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now